shroom:AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

...mean? Am I taking you out of context by quoting you verbatim?

Your logic is flawed. What you think I said and what I said are not the same.

Lando Lincoln:freeforever: Says someone who knows nothing about the Supreme Court or the philosophies of the justices. Scalia and Thomas actually disagree quite often on issues of executive authority and federal vs. state powers.

Feel free to list all of those dissenting opinions. I'll wait right here.

One of the best examples is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.Scalia concurred with the majority opinion that the executive branch cannot hold US citizens suspected of terrorism without due process (not because he has a problem with holding citizens without due process - he just thinks only Congress and not the executive branch gets to suspend habeus corpus. Thomas was the lone dissenter in that opinion, as he believes the President's war-making powers do include that authority or, in the alternative, Congress had implicitly given him that power with the authorisation of use of military force.

Wendy's Chili:jbc: Since when has Thomas ever voted against the wishes of his puppetmaster, Subby?

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Thomas agreeing with Scalia is a WTF? WTF? Is it Opposite Day already?

It's rare but not unheard of for Scalia to rule against law enforcement. Thomas, on the other hand, was once on the losing side of a 8-1 decision in which he approved of strip-searching minors to find Advil.

Phinn:I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars: What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals. But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons? Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional? What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

Same deal.

I don't care if the dog smells drugs, explosives, or underage pussy funk. Get a farkin' warrant.

vernonFL:It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said

Uh, what??? I'm not a lawyer, but that is a really stupid argument.

No, it's what all these 4th amendment cases hang on: the privacy of the house and curtilage vs the right of police officers lawfully present in a particular space to act on anything that is "in plain view" (hearing or smell included). This ruling is in line with ones where the court has said that , its okay to peer through an open window that has no shade, and even to enhance your vision using a telescope or binoculars, but it's not okay to do the same thing with, say a directional microphone or IR camera. The idea being that the person inside can know what they are exposing with the open window and take steps to gaurd thier privacy (by drawing a curtain or shade) but you have no reasonable way of knowing what sounds a super senitive listening device might be able to pick up, or what emissions your house gives off that are not visible to the naked eye.

The dog's nose seems to fall squarely in that second category, an intrusion you cannot reasonable guard against, so the ruling is in line with prior precedent even if the vote breakdown is very weird

AverageAmericanGuy:Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

shroom:AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

...mean? Am I taking you out of context by quoting you verbatim?

You're twisting his words all around when you repeat them back to him in the same order.

This is great. We get the cops to stop abusing our rights over drugs, but they still will smack you hard for paid consensual sex. Face it. The cops are fed by the drug laws and benefit from confiscation. Take those away, and they will find somewhere else to line the trough. Oink oink! All hail the pigs we created.

very unlikely. the majority opinion hinged on the idea of the Curtilage of the house and the very high expectation of privacy we have in our house and its immediate surroundings. All the 4th amendment jurisprudence says there is a far lower expectation of privacy attached to your automobile, even to the extent that in Belton th ecurt ruled cops are basically entitled to conduct a awarrantless search of your whole car, if they have the same level of propbable cause that they think would entitled them to a warrant if they were to ask for one, which they then don;t have to.

Magorn:Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?

very unlikely. the majority opinion hinged on the idea of the Curtilage of the house and the very high expectation of privacy we have in our house and its immediate surroundings. All the 4th amendment jurisprudence says there is a far lower expectation of privacy attached to your automobile, even to the extent that in Belton th ecurt ruled cops are basically entitled to conduct a awarrantless search of your whole car, if they have the same level of propbable cause that they think would entitled them to a warrant if they were to ask for one, which they then don;t have to.

Phinn:I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals. But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons? Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional? What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

shroom:AverageAmericanGuy: Mad_Radhu: AverageAmericanGuy: Alito also said that the court's ruling stretches expectations of privacy too far.

"A reasonable person understands that odors emanating from a house may be detected from locations that are open to the public, and a reasonable person will not count on the strength of those odors remaining within the range that, while detectable by a dog, cannot be smelled by a human."

Go fark yourself, Alito.

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President. These guys hold this seat for life.

Obama and his damn time machine again, traveling back to 2006 to nominate Alito.

I never said Obama nominated Alito. Nor did I say that a Democrat did.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Then what the hell does...

And libs, this is the kind of judge that is installed by a Democrat President.

...mean? Am I taking you out of context by quoting you verbatim?

He didn't say that a democrat installed him, just that IF the democrats had the opportunity to pick the justice, they would have. So vote republican.

muck4doo:This is great. We get the cops to stop abusing our rights over drugs, but they still will smack you hard for paid consensual sex. Face it. The cops are fed by the drug laws and benefit from confiscation. Take those away, and they will find somewhere else to line the trough. Oink oink! All hail the pigs we created.

If you have a problem with the laws that the law enforcers and enforcing, then complain about the laws they're enforcing and who put those laws there in the first place.

Corvus:Profedius: I completely agree with the ruling and I am happy they came to rule as they did. Any search of a person, vehicle or private home should require the consent of the person or warrant granted only with strong evidence supporting the need for such a search. I know this hinders law enforcement, but I am will to give up a little safety in order to keep my freedom.

So no probably cause? If you here someone scream "Help me I am being kidnapped" in the back of trunk he has to get a court warrant first? I think that's a bit extreme.

The law does not consider the event you described a search, however if the officer heard a knocking sound coming from the trunk without a voice declaring a crime in progress then an investigation of the trunk would be considered a search. Sighting an extreme event in order to support illegal searches does not account for the great many searches that should not have been allowed even more so when the event does not pertain to the topic at hand.

elvindeath:All the same hacks expressing shock at "conservative" justices supporting the rights of the individual ought to be in total outrage at the "liberal" administration's position that they can drone strike an American citizen without warrant, search or trial.

Repeat after me:Judicial.Legislative.Executive.

Here's a helpful infographic:

/Protip: 'Constitution' is a document, not a person; these are not all run by the same guy//Maybe if the GOP hadn't made 'Conservative' synonymous with 'Bigoted Idiot' more people would be in 'total outrage' abut drone strikes///BTW, you're only half right that they could target 'inside the U.S.' and you should be more worried that your local Police Department wants drones than the Feds possibly using them against domestic terrorism

Lando Lincoln:muck4doo: This is great. We get the cops to stop abusing our rights over drugs, but they still will smack you hard for paid consensual sex. Face it. The cops are fed by the drug laws and benefit from confiscation. Take those away, and they will find somewhere else to line the trough. Oink oink! All hail the pigs we created.

If you have a problem with the laws that the law enforcers and enforcing, then complain about the laws they're enforcing and who put those laws there in the first place.

This is the thing. They're paid to keep putting more laws on the books. It's stupid. Show me one time ever where Congress met and took laws off the books. When your bread and butter is putting up more laws no matter, you can bet some stupid ones are going to show up. Throw in a gestapo police force that benefits from confiscating property, and you have what you see here today. I know liberals don't want this, and other conservatives I know as well as myself don't want this. I'm glad to see drug laws finally getting torn down, but when the pig has been feeding for so long, you just can't cut off his food without him going ballistic.

That's what I'm wondering. TFA makes no mention of that. Drug dogs are VERY misused in this country, it would be nice to see them thrown out altogether except for those trained to sniff bombs at airports.

muck4doo:Magorn: Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?

very unlikely. the majority opinion hinged on the idea of the Curtilage of the house and the very high expectation of privacy we have in our house and its immediate surroundings. All the 4th amendment jurisprudence says there is a far lower expectation of privacy attached to your automobile, even to the extent that in Belton th ecurt ruled cops are basically entitled to conduct a awarrantless search of your whole car, if they have the same level of propbable cause that they think would entitled them to a warrant if they were to ask for one, which they then don;t have to.

Cop follows the car. You see him behind you thinking the cop will turn off eventually. Cop doesn't. This makes you nervous. You keep glancing at your rearview mirror to see if he/she turns off. This causes you to swerve. Cop flashes lights. Cop gets out and wants to know what kind of drugs you are on since you are driving erratically. Says he has probable cause now to search your car.

elvindeath:Newsflash, folks ... both Scalia and Thomas are generally very critical of the government attempting to expand it's powers, especially when it comes to property rights and infringing on individual freedoms. The alignment of the Justices is not surprising at all. All the same hacks expressing shock at "conservative" justices supporting the rights of the individual ought to be in total outrage at the "liberal" administration's position that they can drone strike an American citizenA PROVEN TRAITOR AND TERRORIST without warrant, search or trial.

Phinn:I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars: What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals. But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons? Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional? What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

The "war on drugs" vs the "war on terror".

For practical purposes, it would seem to me that in both cases the "war" has been far more damaging to society as a whole than the "threat".

Marcus Aurelius:AverageAmericanGuy: Marcus Aurelius:You're twisting his words all around when you repeat them back to him in the same order.

Why am I not surprised libs will treat posts as "living documents" that change meaning as the circumstances fit?

Did you really mean that, or are you taking yourself out of context again?

Well, it might have been confusing to you because it was actually a rhetorical question. I use the rhetorical question to make the point that libs are frequently proponents of "living document" interpretations of the Constitution and light-heartedly suggest that the same is being done to my post.

As to your question, I mean both my original post and the one you are questioning.

Perhaps you ought to go back and actually read what I wrote in order to realize that I have been completely forthright in what I have said.

TwoHead:vernonFL: It's not trespassing when a mail carrier comes on a porch for a brief period, Alito said. And that includes "police officers who wish to gather evidence against an occupant," Alito said

Uh, what??? I'm not a lawyer, but that is a really stupid argument.

Which is why you are either too smart or too honest to make it as a conservative judge.

Trespass law has nothing to do with the 4th amendment, mr alito. Go back to law school.2nd, even if the the postal dude found pot plants on the porch while delivering mail and then reported it to the police, the 4th amendment shouldn't apply to the postal worker's actions, as while he's a government actor, there's an implied consent he is allowed onto the porch by the property owner.

Almost certainly not. The real issue here is that they were on the front porch of the house, clearly part of the property and used the dog to detect the drugs. The ruling really isn't terribly different from the Kyllo case.

A car would be sitting on a public roadway or in a public place like a parking lot, so the same level of privacy isn't going to apply.

PsyLord:muck4doo: Magorn: Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?

very unlikely. the majority opinion hinged on the idea of the Curtilage of the house and the very high expectation of privacy we have in our house and its immediate surroundings. All the 4th amendment jurisprudence says there is a far lower expectation of privacy attached to your automobile, even to the extent that in Belton th ecurt ruled cops are basically entitled to conduct a awarrantless search of your whole car, if they have the same level of propbable cause that they think would entitled them to a warrant if they were to ask for one, which they then don;t have to.

Cop follows the car. You see him behind you thinking the cop will turn off eventually. Cop doesn't. This makes you nervous. You keep glancing at your rearview mirror to see if he/she turns off. This causes you to swerve. Cop flashes lights. Cop gets out and wants to know what kind of drugs you are on since you are driving erratically. Says he has probable cause now to search your car.

AverageAmericanGuy:Perhaps you ought to go back and actually read what I wrote in order to realize that I have been completely forthright in what I have said.

Which is another way of saying, "Look, I'm not going to admit that I screwed up, so I'm going to continue to assert that the dumb words I said are too high-falutin' for you simpletons to understand, and I will be leaving this thread shortly."

Not just that Scalia got it right, which is definitely surprising... but that one marijuana plant can generate about 3900 dollars worth of street value. That's pretty close to 1800 oz of product off of one plant (judging by southern Ontario prices per oz). I didn't know that one plant could support 112 lbs of bud.

Amos Quito:Phinn: I have a hypothetical question for Fark's Armchair Constitutional Scholars: What if the dog was trained to smell explosives?

I could not be more opposed to the criminalization of recreational chemicals. But what if the "crime" in question was, you know, a real crime, like building explosive weapons? Would a simple door-to-door stroll through the suspected neighborhood with a bomb-sniffing dog be unconstitutional? What if it led to the detection of the tell-tale odors and the discovery of people who were in the process of preparing to murder innocent people by the thousands?

The "war on drugs" vs the "war on terror".

For practical purposes, it would seem to me that in both cases the "war" has been far more damaging to society as a whole than the "threat".

elvindeath:Newsflash, folks ... both Scalia and Thomas are generally very critical of the government attempting to expand it's powers, especially when it comes to property rights and infringing on individual freedoms.

muck4doo:Magorn: Gecko Gingrich: I wonder if this will apply to automobiles as well?

very unlikely. the majority opinion hinged on the idea of the Curtilage of the house and the very high expectation of privacy we have in our house and its immediate surroundings. All the 4th amendment jurisprudence says there is a far lower expectation of privacy attached to your automobile, even to the extent that in Belton th ecurt ruled cops are basically entitled to conduct a awarrantless search of your whole car, if they have the same level of propbable cause that they think would entitled them to a warrant if they were to ask for one, which they then don;t have to.

Some cold comfort:I'm not going to claim that probable cause is a standard with a high threshold, but courts have generally found that denial of consent alone is insufficient grounds to find probable cause. There needs to be some other specific, articulable facts that give rise to a belief that a search will reveal evidence of a crime. Certainly, LEOs can and do lie about those facts, but getting to a "reasonable" search is not as simple as claiming something is suspicious.